Tanner v. State
| Decision Date | 16 June 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 42050,No. 2,42050,2 |
| Parties | Leonard E. TANNER v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The trial court did not err in overruling the defendant's motion to suppress evidence.
2. The arrest of the defendant being a legal arrest, the evidence and voluntary confession arising therefrom were properly admitted in evidence.
3. An enumeration of error complaining that the trial court expressed an opinion during the trial presents nothing for decision when no objection or motion for mistrial was made during the trial of the case.
The defendant was indicted and convicted under a multiple count indictment charging him with burglary. On the trial of the case the State introduced evidence that the defendant was stopped for questioning and driver license examination after he was observed at approximately 3:40 a.m., traveling up and down a public road and then behind two business establishments that where closed within a period of approximately five minutes. When the defendant was stopped and the officers were standing beside his automobile they saw, with the aid of a flashlight, the following articles inside the automobile, to wit: a pair of work gloves, a flashlight, a screw driver, a crowbar and an empty 38 caliber Smith & Wesson ammunition box. Upon discovery of such items, and with knowledge of a series of burglaries in the area, they held the defendant for questioning by a superior officer. Upon further investigation of the automobile, with the defendant's permission, a 38 caliber pistol and merchandise from a burglarized store were found in the automobile, the pistol on the floorboard near the gas pedal and the merchandise in the trunk. Thereafter, the defendant made an oral and a written statement in which he admitted various burglaries including the ones of which he was found guilty by the jury. After the verdict and sentence the defendant filed a motion for new trial which was overruled. In the present appeal the defendant enumerates as error the failure of the trial court to consider a motion to suppress evidence, the admission of evidence and contends that the trial court expressed an opinion during the trial of the case.
Larry Cohran, Atlanta, for appellant.
Richard Bell, Sol. Gen., Dennis F. Jones, Decatur, for appellee.
1. The first enumeration of error complains that the trial court erred in failing to hear and grant his motion to suppress certain evidence. Under the decisions in Jackson v. State, 108 Ga.App. 529, 133 S.E.2d 436; and Green v. State, 110 Ga.App. 346, 138 S.E.2d 589, such action by the trial court was not error.
2. Enumerations of error numbered 2, 3 and 5 all deal with the admission of evidence of the items found in the defendant's automobile and the written confession made by the defendant after his arrest.
When the defendant was first seen he was not stopped and it was only after he drove back over the same road approximately five minutes later and then drove his automobile behind two business establishments that were closed that he was stopped by the police officers, and there is no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hodges
...under the totality of the circumstances. See also Anderson v. State, 123 Ga.App. 57, 61, 179 S.E.2d 286 (1970); Tanner v. State, 114 Ga.App. 35, 150 S.E.2d 189 (1966). Concerning seizure of the property, the marijuana and LSD, "[p]robable cause to search an automobile exists when the facts ......
-
Allen v. State
...the court found the police were justified in stopping a car after it passed a service station a second time. See also Tanner v. State, 114 Ga.App. 35, 150 S.E.2d 189. In Connor v. State, 130 Ga.App. 74, 202 S.E.2d 200, this court held that the police were justified in stopping appellant's c......
-
State v. Gates
...United States, 10 Cir., 340 F.2d 827, 829; Commonwealth v. Anderson, 208 Pa.Super. 323, 222 A.2d 495, 499. The facts in Tanner v. State, 114 Ga.App. 35, 150 S.E.2d 189, are much like those in the case at bar. After lawful arrest defendant gave officers permission to examine his automobile m......
-
Brisbane v. State
...143, 146, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 32 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972); United States v. Zubia-Sanchez, 448 F.2d 1232, 1233 (9th Cir. 1971); Tanner v. State, 114 Ga.App. 35, 150 S.E.2d 189 (1966). See also, Note, Nonarrest Automobile Stops: Unconstitutional Seizures of the Person, 25 Stanford L.Rev. 865, 870 (and ......